Rachel Palombi v The Jewellery Group T/A Zamels Jewellers
[2010] FWA 3689
•10 MAY 2010
[2010] FWA 3689 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Rachel Palombi
v
The Jewellery Group T/A Zamels Jewellers
(U2010/6319)
COMMISSIONER DEEGAN | CANBERRA, 10 MAY 2010 |
Termination of employment
[1] On 23 February 2010, an application was received from Ms Rachel Palombi (‘the applicant’) for relief made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (‘the Act’) in respect of the termination of her employment by The Jewellery Group T/A Zamels Jewellers (‘the respondent’).
[2] After an unsuccessful telephone conciliation conference, a telephone directions conference was held where the parties agreed to file written submissions prior to a hearing. Written directions were issued on 11 March 2010 which stated:
“In relation to jurisdiction and arbitration:
1. The applicant is directed to file in Fair Work Australia, and serve on the respondent an outline of submissions, documentary material relied on and witness statements by no later than 5:00pm, Thursday 1 April 2010.
2. The respondent is directed to file in Fair Work Australia, and serve on the applicant an outline of submissions, documentary material relied on and witness statements by no later than 5:00pm, Tuesday 27 April 2010.
…
If the applicant does not comply, the matter may be DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED.”
[3] On 6 April 2010, the respondent contacted Fair Work Australia seeking information in relation to the failure of the applicant to file any material by 1 April 2010. On the same day, Fair Work Australia attempted and was unable to contact the applicant by telephone and subsequently sent written correspondence which stated:
“I refer to the above application made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) in relation to the termination of your employment by Zamels (“the respondent”).
A directions conference was held by telephone on 11 March 2010 and a notice of listing and written directions were issued on the same day. The written directions stated that each party were to file submissions prior to the hearing. You were due to file and serve your written material by 5:00pm, Thursday 1 April 2010.
Our records to date indicate that no material has been filed by the applicant, nor have we received any prior notification that submissions would not be filed. You should file this written material with Fair Work Australia immediately and also send a copy to the respondent.
Should no submissions be received by 5:00pm, Tuesday 13 April 2010, the matter may be deemed to be discontinued pursuant to s.587(3) of the Act.”
[4] On 27 April 2010, I wrote to the applicant:
“On 11 March 2010, directions were issued and you were directed to file and serve your written material by 5:00pm, Thursday 1 April 2010. Our records indicate that no material has been filed you, nor have we received any notification that you do not intend to pursue your applicant.
Fair Work Australia therefore seeks your written confirmation that you intend to continue with your application. Please advise your intention in writing by 5:00pm, Friday 7 May 2010. If no response is received by that time your application will be dismissed.”
[5] No response has been received from the applicant and as at the date of this decision, the applicant has not filed any material.
[6] Section 587 (3) of the Act states:
Dismissing applications
…
(3) FWA may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.
[7] The applicant has not attempted to pursue her application. The applicant did not comply with the directions issued on 11 March 2010 and has provided no response to the letter sent to her on 6 or 27 April 2010.
[8] In the circumstances, the applicant’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed on the initiative of Fair Work Australia under s.587 (3) of the Act.
[9] An order to this effect will issue separately.
COMMISSIONER
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code A, PR996959>
0
0
0